Talk:Playboy Enterprises

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pornography (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Chicago (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


  • DONT MERGE: Playboy (magazine) should not be merged to this, this is an article about a holding company, the other is an article about a publication. Xaosflux 19:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't you think the article should add more info about the company's products, such as the magazine? The article would be improved if it contained throughly information about Playboy Magazine, Playboy TV, and other brand products --Alberto msr 01:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Not really. The Playboy Magazine article is rather large already, nad has been in existance for many years. A merger would also lead about 100 internal links only needing to be edited to not have to go through the rediretor, not to mention external links. Most major magazine articles are standalones already, and not sections of their parent holding companies. I also notice that noone is proposing merges on all of the other listed divions for which their are wiki articles. I do think that the enterprises article has room for expansion, perhaps expansing on its charity and community functions. I am but one voice though, and certainly not a consensus! Xaosflux 02:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right. Merging Playboy Magazine with Playboy Enterprises would yeld in an enormous and giant article. What I think I'm gonna do instead, is create a disambiguation page. When you search for "Playboy", you are redirected to Playboy Magazine article, and the first time I did it, I was looking for corporate info. It took me some days to discover that there was an article called "Playboy Enterprises" in addition to "Playboy Magazine". So I think the best option would be to create a disambiguation page for the term "Playboy".

Pornography stub[edit]

Please do not label this as pornography, as the stance on this being pornography is highly debateable. Ohyeahmormons 23:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It might have been until this summer, when Playboy began producing hardcore adult film. Playboy is a hardcore pornographer, no different than Hustler (LFP), except that Playboy continues to hold non-hardcore assets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Pornography is generally designated as any graphic visual or video footage that is intended to stimulate arousal. If what this enterprise produces doesn't fit that label then please explain why. FreedomFighterXL (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge discussion[edit]

I think that Playboy Entertainment, Playboy Licensing, Playboy Publishing are just divisions of this company and should be merged. Although many products of a corporate division may deserve distinct articles, I think this content all belongs in the Playboy Enterprises page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Playboy Entertainment, Playboy Licensing, Playboy Publishing, as I understand it all fall under the auspices of a single holding company. As such, placing them under a single entry, accessible using individual titles, as above, would be proper. Playboy Magazine, should be maintained as a seperate entry as searches for information on the magazine itself do not directly relate to business matters. Co-referencing links should be maintained for relationship and clarity. As an example to support this position, consider that someone researching the 747 aircraft, and the Boeing Aircraft Corporation would be seeking different information, but the entries would still reference themselves because of the interrelationship. Jbbrandes (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Playboy UK[edit]

Why is Playboy UK a redirect to here? This article has nothing about any UK activity. Does it mean there isn't any? (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)